Is there any way to refute [decently] the argument that reforming the UN is reforming the structure (and not just a program or action)?

That seems a bit specious. A structural reform is a reform. The resolution calls for the reformation of the UN and does not specify that it must be a program or action.

In NATO year, the opposite argument was used. Some teams argued that reforming a program or an action was not a reform of NATO itself, and that the resolution called for a reform of the structural body of NATO.

_________________What should a human be able to do? I agree with Robert A. Heinlein

I think that's what she's saying: the argument she's asking about is that reforming the UN does mean reforming the structure, and does not mean changing one program.

My sympathies actually lie with that argument, but if I had to answer it, I'd look for examples where the word "reform" was used, and it was substantive rather than structural. When people write about drug law reform, they usually mean legalize and tax, as opposed to changing the laws themselves from legislation to executive orders, or administrative agency regulations, or civil causes of action. If legalizing marijuana is drug law reform, then overhauling or abolishing a major UN project could similarly be UN reform.

I think that's what she's saying: the argument she's asking about is that reforming the UN does mean reforming the structure, and does not mean changing one program.

My sympathies actually lie with that argument, but if I had to answer it, I'd look for examples where the word "reform" was used, and it was substantive rather than structural. When people write about drug law reform, they usually mean legalize and tax, as opposed to changing the laws themselves from legislation to executive orders, or administrative agency regulations, or civil causes of action. If legalizing marijuana is drug law reform, then overhauling or abolishing a major UN project could similarly be UN reform.

Yeah, that's what I was asking.. sorry if it was unclear. I do agree with the argument. Hmmm... that's a good idea.. thanks!

I don't think there's a very good argument to be made that it must be a structural reform, seeing as that's very very very narrow. The UN isn't even that huge without its agencies and resolutions taken into consideration.

Just say that:

1) Neg's standard is unreasonable. There'd be like... 10 cases at the most if it was just structural reforms like general assembly or security council reform.

2) Agencies are part of the UN. General assembly = part of the UN, thus general assembly agencies/committees = part of the UN.

I don't think there's a very good argument to be made that it must be a structural reform, seeing as that's very very very narrow. The UN isn't even that huge without its agencies and resolutions taken into consideration.

So if you do not draw the line at structural reform, then where do you draw the line? Would you include specialized agencies?

Most Negs aren't going to run this as "only UNSC and General Assembly". It's a bit more nuanced than that; most people using it would be OK with reforming the qualification procedures of the IMF, for example.

The version of this argument in COG uses the brightline of, roughly, "will this reform fundamentally change how the UN approaches situations in the future?" So saying "all peacekeeping troops must be paid for entirely by the host nations" is topical, but saying "let's send peacekeeping troops to Somalia" is not. (The former effects a fundamental structural change to the way the UN will operates, but the latter just uses the UN's current structure to do something specific. It doesn't change how the UN operates in other cases, just what it does right now in Somalia.)

This standard, IMHO, is quite reasonable on a ground-explosion rationale alone. It leaves room for plenty of good cases, but without it, the Aff's ground explodes; they could do almost anything.

Dr. Srader probably has the best attack strategy. Otherwise, if the Negative isn't using the above brightline, you could propose it as a counter-standard (assuming your plan meets it, of course.) It would probably be more defensible than whatever vague one the Negative is implicitly using.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum